The long march to be a superpower

Thats just a sad and transparent attempt to distort facts. The Chinese maps are nothing like those Spanish maps you speak of. They are different in some many ways anyone with a working brain would be able to easily tell that, and I feel it would merely be a waste of time to list them since you clearly do not care about facts that do not fit with your skewed view of the world and reality.

Ah of course. They are Chinese maps, and that makes all the difference.

Sorry, I misunderstood you, I didn’t realise that as they are Chinese maps then they don’t need to be tested, they must automatically be correct.

It’s obviously so much easier when we all agree with you, avoids all those nasty issues involving proof, facts, government-stoked nationalism, rewriting of history and such.

Carry on old bean.

Unicorn

Ah, the ‘old maps’ defence.

The same ones that China tried to use to say that all of the Spratley’s / Paracels were Chinese territorial waters, up to 12 nautical miles from the coasts of several other soverign nations.

And since when was proximity ever a recognized way to decide sovereignty? Or do you think the Falklands are closer to England the Argentina? :rolleyes:

That one was so laughable that the Chinese never tried to push that into international jurisprudence, knowing they would lose.

You have any sources to back up these claims you are pulling out of nowhere? Seems anything and everything you disagree with are laughable, so excuse me if I don’t take you ‘unbiased’ opinion at face value.

That’s like saying that as ancient Spanish maps said that anything ‘beyond the line’ belonged to Spain, the US, Canada, Mexico and the nations of Central and South America are vassels of Spain.

Sorry mate, you need to do better than that.

Unicorn

Thats just a sad and transparent attempt to distort facts. The Chinese maps are nothing like those Spanish maps you speak of. They are different in some many ways anyone with a working brain would be able to easily tell that, and I feel it would merely be a waste of time to list them since you clearly do not care about facts that do not fit with your skewed view of the world and reality.

No, it is you who do not seem to understand. Ancient Chinese maps were not created for propaganda but reference. Maps are one of the very few things that do not lie, especially old ones.

Ah, the ‘old maps’ defence.

The same ones that China tried to use to say that all of the Spratley’s / Paracels were Chinese territorial waters, up to 12 nautical miles from the coasts of several other soverign nations.

That one was so laughable that the Chinese never tried to push that into international jurisprudence, knowing they would lose.

That’s like saying that as ancient Spanish maps said that anything ‘beyond the line’ belonged to Spain, the US, Canada, Mexico and the nations of Central and South America are vassels of Spain.

Sorry mate, you need to do better than that.

Unicorn

China did not rule Tibet, any more than it ruled Korea – which it also considered a tributary state – before the Japanese conquest. China also claimed Japan & Ryukyu as tributary states, without anything except an occasional embassy from them to give substance to the claim, & got quite testy about Vietnams refusal to act like a proper subordinate.

You’re using inappropriate language, for concepts which you don’t appear to understand. There have long been many intermediate stages between independence & being part of a country. Recently, a somewhat artificial notion of absolute sovereignty has become generally accepted, though even now it is clearly false in many cases, but back then older arrangements were still commonplace, e.g. the idea of a state being a separate state, but having externally imposed limits on its sovereignty. It could be fully involuntary, fully voluntary, or somewhere in between. In the case of Tibet, I think it was largely involuntary, but the Tibetans saw some advantages in it, e.g. the ability to use China as a buffer against foreign states they wanted nothing to do with.

In Bolivia, I saw maps showing some very interesting borders, I’ve seen Pakistani maps showing all of Kashmir as part of Pakistan, Afghan maps showing the North West Frontier Province & much of Baluchistan as part of Afghanistan – I could go on and on. Never heard of propaganda? Maps as propaganda have a long & ignoble history.

No, it is you who do not seem to understand. Ancient Chinese maps were not created for propaganda but reference. Maps are one of the very few things that do not lie, especially old ones.

There is concrete documented evidence that Tibet was under Chinese rule as early as the Yuan Dynasty. There was then a great deal of shifts in the boarders as was common with ancient times, and Chinese rule of Tibet did slip in the Ming Dynasty, but was restored in the Qing Dynasty.

And we are not talking about a mere tributary state, since the likes of Vietnam, Laos, Thailand etc were all No, it is you who do not seem to understand. Ancient Chinese maps were not created for propaganda but reference. Maps are one of the very few things that do not lie, especially only ones.

There is concrete documented evidence that Tibet was under Chinese rule as early as the Yuan Dynasty. There was then a great deal of shifts in the boarders as was common with ancient times, and Chinese rule of Tibet did slip in the Ming Dynasty, but was restored in the Qing Dynasty.

And we are not talking about a mere tributary state, since the likes of Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand etc were all tributary states but were never included on maps of China unless they had been conquered at the time, and also disappeared off of maps when they broke free.

I have also yet to see any evidence of this rosy view you seem to have that suggested that Tibetans cared about who ruled them. To the vast majority of people, they really couldn’t care less unless you want to tax them more.

You use the language of imperialism & authoritarianism. “Owned”. “Robbed”. How can you “own” a whole country? Never heard of self-determination? What about democracy? Not that Tibet was at all democratic, but I doubt you would have been able to find a significant number of Tibetans who thought it part of China or wanted to be ruled from China.

And that is just nit picking. Governments own land and everything attached to it. People might hold deeds, but those deeds have limits and are nothing more then permanent usage rights as opposed to rule ownership like sovereign states enjoy. They also ‘own’ the people to some degree, its called taxes and nationality. That is obviously different from how someone might own property, but I fail to see what the big deal is.

Self-determination is also a relatively new concept to the world stage, much like your absolute sovereignty. Self-determination also becomes a hopelessly flawed concept if you allow people the right to choose to declare independence, especially with land they hold deeds to (although in a way, people could already break away by themselves if they wish, its call immigration, but its the breaking away with land part that is stupid).

If people had the legal right to declare independence at will, a murderer would do so to avoid paying for his crimes, and the lucky farmer who discovers oil under his land could choose to break away and avoid the pesky taxes. The drug dealer could make his back garden into a poppy plantation and his kitchen a drugs lab…Civilization would grind to a halt and nations would dissolve and devolve. Civilization as we know it is based on scale economies, and all nations have a vest interest to maintain that scale.

Self-determination has is an artificial creation, and is more an individual human right within the context of national and international laws and designed to counter slavery as opposed to some god given right to decide you want to be the king of your own little empire.

Democracy also works within national limits, where all citizens must be consulted instead of the mere minority who wants something. Thats why the rich don’t get to vote to opt out of national health programmes unless the nation as a whole agrees, and why other countries that are facing a similar split along ethnic and demographic lines also demand full national participation, like in Quebec and Kashmir.

What you are suggestion is not only not in keeping with international laws, but is also plain impractical. Any nation that go as far as what you suggest would more then likely crumble along any and all ethnical/religious/whatever fault lines before long unless it was a tiny, homogeneous nation to begin with.

I must say I expected better from you. You have merely allowed your emotions to cloud your better judgment and taken individual liberties to the limits of practicability and beyond.

As Finland cannot be mentioned in this forum without Gollevainen’s obinion to the matter….:

If it was so, then Tibet would have been 100% independent and sovreing state by the all meaning of those two words:D 😀
….
Ps. Why on earth is this in Naval-aviation forum:confused:

Not so – Finlands sovereignty was circumscribed by treaty, under which the USSR could veto treaties between Finland & other states, placed limits on Finnish weapons, etc. Finnish associate membership of EFTA & its free trade agreement with the EEC required careful diplomacy & much discussion with the USSR beforehand. The treaty is no longer in force, of course.

Why here? Good question.

It might be, but I never read them.

But British exploration missions were allowed into Tibet prior because they had a pass issued by Beijing. Beijing might not have directly ruled Tibet with a governor, but it did rule Tibet nonetheless, and Tibet was considered Chinese territory as evident by ancient maps.

The British military mission’s sole purpose was to remove Chinese control and create a buffer state. They cared not for the land because it was essentially worthless, but merely wanted to add an extra degree of security and insulation between China and the Jew in the crown of the British Empire for geopolitical reasons.

If you robbed someone, you still robbed them even if you later discarded what you took.

China did not rule Tibet, any more than it ruled Korea – which it also considered a tributary state – before the Japanese conquest. China also claimed Japan & Ryukyu as tributary states, without anything except an occasional embassy from them to give substance to the claim, & got quite testy about Vietnams refusal to act like a proper subordinate.

You’re using inappropriate language, for concepts which you don’t appear to understand. There have long been many intermediate stages between independence & being part of a country. Recently, a somewhat artificial notion of absolute sovereignty has become generally accepted, though even now it is clearly false in many cases, but back then older arrangements were still commonplace, e.g. the idea of a state being a separate state, but having externally imposed limits on its sovereignty. It could be fully involuntary, fully voluntary, or somewhere in between. In the case of Tibet, I think it was largely involuntary, but the Tibetans saw some advantages in it, e.g. the ability to use China as a buffer against foreign states they wanted nothing to do with.

In Bolivia, I saw maps showing some very interesting borders, I’ve seen Pakistani maps showing all of Kashmir as part of Pakistan, Afghan maps showing the North West Frontier Province & much of Baluchistan as part of Afghanistan – I could go on and on. Never heard of propaganda? Maps as propaganda have a long & ignoble history.

You use the language of imperialism & authoritarianism. “Owned”. “Robbed”. How can you “own” a whole country? Never heard of self-determination? What about democracy? Not that Tibet was at all democratic, but I doubt you would have been able to find a significant number of Tibetans who thought it part of China or wanted to be ruled from China.

The historical status of Tibet is debatable. Tibet was traditionally a tributary of China, and if Tibet enjoyed independence in the interval between the fall of the fall of the last emperor and Mao’s invasion, it was only because of the weakness of the Chinese state and British intervention.

The 14th Dalai Lama was the absolute ruler of a desperately poor people. It is a Western myth that Tibet was some sort of earthly paradise before the Chinese gradually took over. The truth is that Tibetans were controled and taxed heavily by a Buddhist regime that was just as “undemocratic” and arbitrary as any in history.

The Red Chinese were hardly the liberators of the Tibetan people, but it is also unreasonable to suppose that the Dalai Lama’s rule would have been entirely unopposed.

Taiwan’s first multi-party election occured in 1989 – 40 years after the nationalists fled to the island of Formosa.

Of course, 1989 was a lifetime ago, and China has changed almost beyond recognition. Today, trade matters far more than politics.

Debating Taiwan’s current status is an exercise if futility. There is no longer an ideological and economic gulf between the RoC and the PRC. The simple truth is the residents of the island of Formosa are ethnic Chinese, and in the last two decades Taiwan has become economically interdependent with the mainland.

Very well said!

Tibet, if not invaded by China, would probably still be an independent nation state, similar to Bhutan and Nepal, rather than a colony of China.

The historical status of Tibet is debatable. Tibet was traditionally a tributary of China, and if Tibet enjoyed independence in the interval between the fall of the fall of the last emperor and Mao’s invasion, it was only because of the weakness of the Chinese state and British intervention.

The 14th Dalai Lama was the absolute ruler of a desperately poor people. It is a Western myth that Tibet was some sort of earthly paradise before the Chinese gradually took over. The truth is that Tibetans were controled and taxed heavily by a Buddhist regime that was just as “undemocratic” and arbitrary as any in history.

The Red Chinese were hardly the liberators of the Tibetan people, but it is also unreasonable to suppose that the Dalai Lama’s rule would have been entirely unopposed.

Taiwan is independent of China with a functioning, fully-fledged democracy and an independent foreign policy.

Taiwan’s first multi-party election occured in 1989 – 40 years after the nationalists fled to the island of Formosa.

Of course, 1989 was a lifetime ago, and China has changed almost beyond recognition. Today, trade matters far more than politics.

Debating Taiwan’s current status is an exercise if futility. There is no longer an ideological and economic gulf between the RoC and the PRC. The simple truth is the residents of the island of Formosa are ethnic Chinese, and in the last two decades Taiwan has become economically interdependent with the mainland.

As Finland cannot be mentioned in this forum without Gollevainen’s obinion to the matter….:

It (sino-tibet relation; golly’s clarification point ) is more like the relationship between Finland & the USSR during the Cold War, though cast in a much more ancient mould, or the relationship between the USA & some of its allies.

If it was so, then Tibet would have been 100% independent and sovreing state by the all meaning of those two words:D 😀

but judging from the some of the last few post of our indian/china axel of …hmm…civilised and sensible members, It would propaply be lot better to this thread if we wouldn’t speak of China at all….seems to just raise unneserical hot feelings.

But my stance for Taiwan’s and Tibet’s independece is that in morale grounds, every unit of society has rigth to be free and govner themselves, if they have guts to claim that rigth and defend it. History hasen’t set any other rule to determ wich is “rigth” way for seperatist to claim regocnicible state other than pure power of gun-barrels and sword-blades. Reality is the thing that determs wheter Taiwan is or is to be independent nation, not some fact-twisting arguing over out-of-the-context interpretation of international law. This is something that I wish that everyone against or with should take under consideration.

Ps. Why on earth is this in Naval-aviation forum:confused:

Exactly why plawolf carefully avoided answering my question directly, since he knew he’d be knee-deep in merde… either way.

Ha, you can’t even recap on things that happen a few minutes ago without trying to twist it. :rolleyes:

You ask me, “So you are saying that the votes of current inhabitants of the Falklands , but should be based on the origin of the original inhabitants of the island?“

And I gave you the straight answer to, ‘No‘.

It was done because it was right thing to do. Had the vote turned out that the inhabitants chose Argentinia, then UK would have no choice but to cede the territory.

BS. It was done because it was a virtual certainty what the inhabitants would choose. Everyone knew it and would have happily accepted that without the need for a vote. Even the Argentinians. Thus the vote was never about gaging public opinion, but rather a means to shift the focus. It was a very clever political move designed to undermine Argentinian claims to the island, and it is working perfectly.

I guess this is the Chinese nationalist mentality. The results of elections are unfair unless the result is agreeable to them. The problem China has with a Taiwanese referendum for independence is that a vote for independence is a virtual certainty if there wasn’t the threat of a Chinese invasion. If China was certain that the Taiwanese would vote for reunification, they’d supprt the referendum wholeheartedly.

The Chinese are opposed to a referendum because the 23million people living on Taiwan has no right to decide on things that affect a country of 1.3billion to which Taiwan is a part of.

And please spare me the pathetic attempt to take the moral high ground, least we forget the shameful treatment of the Palestinians by the west, who refused to deal with a democratically elected government because the Palestinians had the nerve to vote Hamas into power.

In CCP-approved mandarin, running away from 2 approaching Indian Corps is called “voluntarily withdrawing all its forces to behind the line of control, aka the boarder, after it felt it had made its point instead of staying and occupying all that captured land.”

So what, the PLA should have stayed and killed every last Indian who dared resist and then leave? That claim is about as credible as the Taliban claiming they are pushing the British out of Iraq. :rolleyes:

Want some Pepsi and some not so soft-drink as well?? 😀

Oh no…now the Indians 😮 …quick Hyper pass on the beer, this thread will be our new champion in posts and will take a while to die out. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I tried and tried to warn them, but it’s too late. 🙁

Votes for everyone who can show an ancestor born on the islands before the first British settlement in 1765!

Y’know, we could apply the “no votes for settlers” principle to Taiwan & Tibet, as well. All the Chinese in Taiwan have settled there in historical times. Not many original inhabitants left, & I’m not sure if any of them still speak their old language, but some of them have retained their identity. Only they can vote! The other 99% of the population are settlers, & don’t count, like all the Chinese in Tibet.

Exactly why plawolf carefully avoided answering my question directly, since he knew he’d be knee-deep in merde… either way.

No, I was merely pointing out that it was a pointless vote since there was no question as to the outcome.

It was done for political reasons and only political reasons. This way the British government can seamlessly hand the ‘blame’ to the inhabitants, knowing full well no-one, least of all Argentina could criticize the inhabitants. Could you imagine the media $hitstorm if Argentina grumbled something about the inhabitants being the obstacle to the island being return to Argentina even thought it is true?

It was done because it was right thing to do. Had the vote turned out that the inhabitants chose Argentinia, then UK would have no choice but to cede the territory.

I guess this is the Chinese nationalist mentality. The results of elections are unfair unless the result is agreeable to them. The problem China has with a Taiwanese referendum for independence is that a vote for independence is a virtual certainty if there wasn’t the threat of a Chinese invasion. If China was certain that the Taiwanese would vote for reunification, they’d supprt the referendum wholeheartedly.

i guess the definitions of “defending” and “aggression” seem to be weird either in Mandarin or in the communist party literature ,,,,

In CCP-approved mandarin, running away from 2 approaching Indian Corps is called “voluntarily withdrawing all its forces to behind the line of control, aka the boarder, after it felt it had made its point instead of staying and occupying all that captured land.”

And of Kashmir is a wonderful example of benevolent imperialism of India. LOL!!!!!

I just read an article in Asia Times that said India fought against apartheid in South Africa. Bull!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-QK35hYIWo

aint you a part of the same “squad” ?? China this .. China that ,,, OOOhh poor old China !!! China “defended” against Tibet ,, China “defended” against India , China is preparing to “defend” against Taiwan ,,,,, :rolleyes:

Yawn, quite whining and making up crap.

the “history” that you so eagerly and scholarly refer to is nothing but Chinese Communist Propaganda ,,,,,
@ the outbreak of full scale hostilities ,,, China already was in control ofAksai-Chin which was/is essentially an integral part of India and effectively in breach of Indias territorial sovereignity ,,,, and India sending patrols instead of the Army to evict Intruders from its own territory is called aggression and ambushing the Chinese ????

Ha, what BS. All the things I has said can be corroborated with any number of sources, including Indian.

Before hostilities broke out both India and China were on their respective sides of the line of control as decided by the British, but both had territorial claims on the other side of the line. Instead of having a mature, rational discussion with China and try to negotiate a peaceful solution, India arrogantly and unilaterally decided that China was in control of Indian land and tried to forcibly take that land. I guess the stupid PLA should have just shot themselves and saved India the effort instead of resisting this act of wanton aggression. :rolleyes:

i guess the definitions of “defending” and “aggression” seem to be weird either in Mandarin or in the communist party literature ,,,, 😮

Yet more pathetic rantings without a shred of rationality or reason. Just what I come to expect from a member of the goonsquad. :rolleyes:

what claims do you have apart from sino defense or plaboards to back up your claims of Chinese “defense” from India / Tibet ??

The fact that the Indian military attacked Chinese patrols and outposts. Those outposts didn’t magically appear out of thin air kiddo. The British decided where the line of control was, India wasn’t happy with that and attack the Chinese and consequently got their butts spanked.

The fact that the PLA voluntarily pulled back to behind the line of control after it had crushed the Indian army proves beyond any spin you can put on the matter that China did not care for Indian land (the parts the PLA overran were far better land then the arid parts of Tibet that India claims). It was the fact that India refused to negotiate and attacked that struck a nerve. China had just emerged from a century of suffering as a result of foreign nations carving bits out of China, and the PRC was going to be damned before it allows that to ever happen again.

Votes for everyone who can show an ancestor born on the islands before the first British settlement in 1765! :diablo:

Y’know, we could apply the “no votes for settlers” principle to Taiwan & Tibet, as well. All the Chinese in Taiwan have settled there in historical times. Not many original inhabitants left, & I’m not sure if any of them still speak their old language, but some of them have retained their identity. Only they can vote! The other 99% of the population are settlers, & don’t count, like all the Chinese in Tibet.

So what about America or Australia or Canada? :dev2:

Stupid rules create stupid results.

Ah yes, I was wondering when the nationalistic goonsquad would show up. :rolleyes:

aint you a part of the same “squad” ?? China this .. China that ,,, OOOhh poor old China !!! China “defended” against Tibet ,, China “defended” against India , China is preparing to “defend” against Taiwan ,,,,, :rolleyes:

Go read up on history since you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. India was the one who initiated aggression by first ambushing Chinese patrols and then launching a massive offensive designed to ‘push the Chinese out’ of what India unilaterally claimed was Indian territory. All this was done without any meaningful attempt to negotiate a peaceful agreement beforehand. How can that be described as anything other then an act of aggression?

the “history” that you so eagerly and scholarly refer to is nothing but Chinese Communist Propaganda ,,,,,
@ the outbreak of full scale hostilities ,,, China already was in control of Aksai-Chin which was/is essentially an integral part of India and effectively in breach of Indias territorial sovereignity ,,,, and India sending patrols instead of the Army to evict Intruders from its own territory is called aggression and ambushing the Chinese ????

i guess the definitions of “defending” and “aggression” seem to be weird either in Mandarin or in the communist party literature ,,,, 😮

Ha, you got anything to back up those baseless claims of yours? Or is that just the latest episode of denial tactics?

what claims do you have apart from sino defense or plaboards to back up your claims of Chinese “defense” from India / Tibet ??

Is this what they teach in Chinese schools? Explains a lot. 🙁

It might be, but I never read them.

Britain never annexed Tibet. A British military mission to Tibet in 1903 was prevented from entering, & turned into a de facto invasion in 1904, which occupied Lhasa. But it withdrew a month later. Britain never claimed Tibet, never governed it nor tried to, & never tried to advance past Lhasa…

But British exploration missions were allowed into Tibet prior because they had a pass issued by Beijing. Beijing might not have directly ruled Tibet with a governor, but it did rule Tibet nonetheless, and Tibet was considered Chinese territory as evident by ancient maps.

The British military mission’s sole purpose was to remove Chinese control and create a buffer state. They cared not for the land because it was essentially worthless, but merely wanted to add an extra degree of security and insulation between China and the Jew in the crown of the British Empire for geopolitical reasons.

If you robbed someone, you still robbed them even if you later discarded what you took.

So you are saying that the votes of current inhabitants of the Falklands , but should be based on the origin of the original inhabitants of the island? :rolleyes:

Votes for everyone who can show an ancestor born on the islands before the first British settlement in 1765! :diablo:

Y’know, we could apply the “no votes for settlers” principle to Taiwan & Tibet, as well. All the Chinese in Taiwan have settled there in historical times. Not many original inhabitants left, & I’m not sure if any of them still speak their old language, but some of them have retained their identity. Only they can vote! The other 99% of the population are settlers, & don’t count, like all the Chinese in Tibet.

So you are saying that the votes of current inhabitants of the Falklands , but should be based on the origin of the original inhabitants of the island? :rolleyes:

No, I was merely pointing out that it was a pointless vote since there was no question as to the outcome.

It was done for political reasons and only political reasons. This way the British government can seamlessly hand the ‘blame’ to the inhabitants, knowing full well no-one, least of all Argentina could criticize the inhabitants. Could you imagine the media $hitstorm if Argentina grumbled something about the inhabitants being the obstacle to the island being return to Argentina even thought it is true?

Tibet had been a part of China for centuries before the British annexed it to use as a buffer between China as its precious India. The China was merely retaking what was stolen from China and the west only have a problem with it because China was communist and so must be wrong in all things.
.

Is this what they teach in Chinese schools? Explains a lot. 🙁

Britain never annexed Tibet. A British military mission to Tibet in 1903 was prevented from entering, & turned into a de facto invasion in 1904, which occupied Lhasa. But it withdrew a month later. Britain never claimed Tibet, never governed it nor tried to, & never tried to advance past Lhasa.

BTW, the army which fought the British was entirely Tibetan, led by Tibetans, under orders from the Tibetan government, & financed by Tibetan taxes. Not a single Chinese soldier fought. The only Chinese soldiers in Tibet were the guards of the Chinese “resident” in Lhasa, who was an ambassador rather than a governor.

Tibets relationship to China was that of a client state, a self-governing nation which accepted limits on its foreign relations in exchange for a notional degree of protection, or at least a promise not to attack. That is not the same as being part of China. It is more like the relationship between Finland & the USSR during the Cold War, though cast in a much more ancient mould, or the relationship between the USA & some of its allies.

Chinas claim on Tibet is good old-fashioned imperialism, of the kind that was hypocritically condemned by Mao at the same time as he was practicing it.